Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120104 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 3 Appointments of Chair and Vice -Chair 3 South Aspen Street PUD — PUD Amendment 3 • 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 Stan Gibbs opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer, Keith Goode, Stan Gibbs and Cliff Weiss. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jim DeFrancia complimented the chair, Stan Gibbs, with the discussions with City Council for his appropriately affirmative assertiveness without being argumentative and demonstrated common sense. Bert Myrin agreed with Jim's praise for Stan. Bert said the future meetings list showed a couple of blank meetings the 24 and 31 and he wondered if the AACP could fill in those times. Jennifer Phelan responded that she needed to talk with the long range planner and Chris for the schedule. Bert said that he didn't mind keeping up meetings every Tuesday. Stan said that Council would like P &Z to be at the Council meetings on the AACP; whenever they get scheduled it would be great if everyone could be there from both P &Z's. Stan said that we have a joint document that has been adopted by both City and County P &Z. Bert said there were 3 pages of issues that we wanted to discuss at P &Z that he has written them down of over the last several years and asked if we wanted to do something with the process for that data. Stan said that they need to schedule part of a meeting for these things. Bert said it was the first of the year and wanted to know if we wanted to schedule times for these issues. Jessica Garrow said that they were scheduled on February 7 work session with Council. Bert said that he would circulate the list of issues; to staff or Jackie. Jessica said on January 23' they are doing a first reading of the AACP with Council and then public hearings on the 13 and 27 of February. On February 7th it is in Council before they adopt the plan and as soon as that action is taken we can move into code amendments. Stan asked if P &Z was part of the 23` 13th and 27 meetings. Jessica replied yes and that she was looking to a work session with Council about the code amendments and Community Development is hoping to get comments from P &Z. Minutes MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes of November 15 seconded by LJ Erspamer. All in favor APPROVED. 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve the minutes from December 6 111 seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor APPROVED. Bert said there was a full board so why not extend it for the nominations for chair and vice chair. Stan opened the appointments for Chair and Vice -Chair to be voted on separately. Jim DeFrancia nominated Stan Gibbs for Chair. Jasmine Tygre nominated LJ Erspamer for Chair. Stan Gibbs nominated Jasmine Tygre for Chair. Jim True counted the votes for chair and there were 4 votes were for LJ Erspamer as Chair. Stan Gibbs asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Bert Myrin nominated Stan Gibbs and Jasmine Tygre for Vice Chair. Jasmine Tygre nominated Bert Myrin for Vice Chair. Bert Myrin declined his nomination. Jim True stated that Stan Gibbs received the most votes. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #001 -12 to approve LJ Erspamer as Chair and Stan Gibbs as Vice Chair. Jasmine Tygre seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated. Public Hearing: South Aspen Street PUD — PUD Amendment LJ Erspamer opened the Public Hearing for South Aspen Street PUD. Jennifer Phelan said the request before you is to amend the existing approvals for this South Aspen Street PUD. Jennifer said the owners were ASV Aspen Street Owners LLC and they are being represented by Poss Architecture and Mitch Haas. Jennifer stated the existing parcel is located on Lots 1, 2 and 3, which are adjacent to Aspen Street. Jennifer reiterated that this is to amend the approvals that are vested; the existing approvals were for 31 on -site housing units, 14 are free market and 17 were approved to be affordable housing units. It was a residential multi- family project that was approved; this approval occurred in 2003 and the original application was submitted in 2000. Jennifer said the applicant is before you to reduce the entitlements to reduce the on -site housing to a total of 24 units; 14 will be free - market and 10 will be affordable housing and proposed 8 off site affordable housing units at the ABC'and a cash payment in lieu. Also proposed are some site layout changes and architectural changes to the exterior of these residential buildings. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 Jennifer said that P &Z's role was to make recommendations on these land use requests to Council; the approvals that are being vested are amendments to basically the residential multi - family replacement program, growth management for the affordable housing and a subdivision and PUD Amendment. Council is the final approval of all reviews. Jennifer said that this was submitted under the 2000 land use code and approved 2003 for the 31 residential multi - family units, the townhomes. Jennifer said the vesting has been extended while the owner has tried to get a lodge development through; the last vesting of rights for this project was in 2009 and the vesting approval said that if there was a period of inactivity for 6 months then a 2 year vesting clock would start ticking and Aspen Mountain did not materialize and there was a 6 month period of inactivity that was said to occur of March 1, 2011. So the applicant needs to submit by March 1, 2013 either a building permit for the approvals that were granted in 2003 or their vesting will expire. Jennifer said the applicant was here with a different proposal and the proposal today was for Parcel 1, which is adjacent to Dean and Juan Streets to be developed with a 5 plex free- market building and 1 affordable housing building with 10 affordable housing units and an underground parking garage which will require some SkiCo parking, some affordable housing parking. Parcel 2 and 3 are the higher part of South Aspen Street are proposed to be combined into 1 lot and is to be developed with 3 triplexes with a total of 9 units. Jennifer said the land use reviews were under the 2000 Land Use Code because it is still a vested project and they are asking for amendments for those rules and regulations that were in place in the original application. The 2000 code required that 50% of the bedrooms and 50% of the net livable be replaced with affordable housing and half of that affordable housing needed to be above grade. Jennifer said in table 2 of the memo on Page 5; at the time in the original proposal they exceeded the affordable housing on site. In 2000 they were proposing 43 bedrooms as opposed to the 12 that were required. Today's project proposed 10 units on site and that alone meets the 12 bedrooms requirement on site; the square footage on site and in addition the applicant is proposing 8 three bedroom units at the ABC that are about 1200 square feet a piece. Jennifer said that you end up with 36 units both on site and at the ABC; there is about 16, 280 square feet of net livable, which is less than was approved but in excess of the 2000 requirement. The applicant does meet the review requirement for demolition of multi - family housing; just on site and in excess of what's being proposed off site. Jennifer said that APCHA did approve this proposal as well as the 2000 proposal; APCHA also 4 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 approved the cash -lieu being proposed and asking for an average of category 3 per unit. This new proposal is in conflict with the preferred options of onsite housing in APCHA's policy statement. Jennifer said that in subdivision they are looking to merge lots 2 and 3 creating a larger lot; it does meet the intent of subdivision standards. Jennifer said the final review on the land use side is the Planned Unit Development, so this property is located in the lodge zone district but is approved for a townhome development on it. And also has an overlay on the site; the PUD creates a site specific approval which is the townhomes. Jennifer said today the applicants are requesting a new site specific approval; in general it reduces the number of dwelling units on the site; it changes certain setbacks on certain property lines and also changes the footprints of the building on the ground. Jennifer said staff is concerned with the overall building setbacks and they are highlighted in the staff memo, that are the curb cuts and the footprint of the buildings to the street do not reinforce the traditional grid development of town. Staff is also concerned about the use of retaining walls on the site even though it is a steep site there is an opportunity to do that more sensitively on the site. Jennifer said the biggest concern was the reduction of density on the site; off site housing does not assist in lessening our reliance on the automobile. Staff is supportive to changes to the site plan; the skin of the project, it is more modern and staff can support unit type changes if the applicant thinks that would be a better mix of types on the site but staff does not support moving density out of the city limits. Cliff Weiss asked the number of units proposed. Jennifer replied the original proposed 31 units (14 free - market and 17 affordable) and the current proposal is 24 on site residential units (14 free- market and 10 affordable housing) and 8 off -site affordable housing units. Jim DeFrancia asked on table 3 what sounds like more units you only have 42'1 employees housed. Jennifer said there was a total change in number of bedrooms and unit types so what is being proposed is less employees that 3.5 cash -in -lieu proposal to get you to that 46. Stan Gibbs asked if there was a drawing that shows the setbacks. Jennifer answered the site plan. Stan asked if they indicated where the issues were. Jasmine Tygre said in the minutes of the final approval there was a comment in the final PUD in front of Council where neighbors complemented the applicant in reducing the height from 28 feet to 25 feet but your chart shows 28 feet. Mitch 5 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 Haas said the Ordinance said 28 feet but you will see a comparison of the buildings proposed and the buildings approved. Jasmine said the overall FAR is going to stay the same according to this chart, is that correct. Mitch replied it will actually be lower, the chart established the maximum and they were not exactly sure how to calculate them so they calculated the numbers under today's code. LJ Erspamer asked about page 7 regarding Subdivision; you said in general the applicant meets the subdivision criteria; what don't they meet. Jennifer responded the subdivision requirements have some engineering standard review criteria and they do meet the subdivision review criteria. LJ said that we received another packet on this are they the same. Jennifer said that they were exactly the same except for the addition of one sentence that is you needed me to bring extra copies. LJ asked if the engineer is going to do the traffic analysis; it is accordance to the National Standards and P &Z will not be seeing this. Jennifer replied that the engineer would like a little more analysis for the area. Bert Myrin said on page 2 it states the 4 reviews and asked if they all fell under one of those. Jennifer responded what you have read are more the criteria for the PUD. Bert asked if staff felt that the first 3 were mostly met. Jennifer replied the residential replacement is met according to the 2000 code. Jennifer said the growth management review is basically a substantial amendment; the affordable housing standard basically asked for a recommendation from APCHA and they would meet the criteria from the 2004 affordable housing as far as design; there are some questions of categories that APCHA did not discuss; the average is category 3. Mitch Haas said at the APCHA told them that categories 1 and 2 for all of those on site housing units and they would sort out which ones were 1 or 2. Mitch said the way the off site was approved was category 3 can be lower if the developer and APCHA negotiate and they were open to having those discussions as well. Bert said staff had concern for the garage access to the upper triplex being forward of Aspen Street. Jennifer answered that there were residential design standards that were in place in 2000 and essentially she was trying to show which ones they do or do not meet. Cliff said that we have dealt with various condos since 2008. Jennifer replied that there was no cap in 2000 on unit size. Cliff said isn't this a new PUD. Jennifer said the cap size is in the multi - family zone district; she said that she didn't want to make this more complicated than it needs to be; the applicant is asking to amend their existing approvals under the 2000 code so they would not have to meet this cap that is currently in place that was adopted in 2006. 6 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 Stan asked if the subdivision request to combine lots 2 and 3 has any significant difference in the development that is allowed when you go from 42,000 to 65,000 square feet. Jennifer said this is a site specific development and it would only be approving the triplexes on that one lot. Jasmine said in the original approvals there lots like parcel 2 that were both LTR and R -15 and the recommendation was to be LTR except the underlying zoning dimensions would be that of LTR rather than R -15. Jasmine said that LTR allows larger dimensions than R -15, correct. Jennifer replied that R -15 would be totally different and different dimensions. Jasmine said that she was talking about setbacks, FAR, height; all those are bigger. Jennifer said that R -15 has greater setbacks. Mitch said that there is no LTR Zoning in the City anymore and this is vested under LTR rules. Bert said in the applicant packet F in the second sentence it talks about current codes; he asked if that changed anything being under the current code. Jennifer said you should be judging this on the code in effect at the time to keep it as simple as possible. Bert agreed with Jennifer but he was confused on why the dimensional requirements are focused on today's code or current in the second sentence. Mitch said it was in the book page 7 and the city has adopted real clear on how you define everything, the floor area purposes, how heights are measured. Mitch said they designed this proposal given the current ways of calculating things; for instance back in 2000 none of the garage floor area would count as grade; but today's code a good deal of it does. Mitch said they built it into our numbers which is getting back to Jasmine's question which is about why we didn't lower the floor area limit it was that we weren't sure how the city was going to go about doing calculations. Jim DeFrancia said we are supposed to judge this application by the 2000 code and the 2000 standards because that is what it is going with but if the applicant chooses to agree voluntarily to more rigid standards that came in later they are free to do that. Jennifer said particularly when they are talking about heights or setbacks or square footages you want to go with you current code because that is what is existing today. Break David Parker introduced himself as a partner with Bald Mountain Development and the representative of ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC. David provided his background and said the site was purchased in 2000 by Centurion and got the townhome project approved and through encouragement with the City through the 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 COWOP process for a hotel but they were turned down. David said the partnership spent the last year looking at the site trying to see what options were and again said let's go along with the townhome site and see if we can make it better. David said that they have lessened some of the impacts on the neighbors. Stephen Holley, architect with Poss Architecture, stated that they would be addressing throughout the presentation the specifics from concerns raised during the staff presentation and the recently P &Z questions with regards to setbacks, the AH units mitigation, density and the pedestrian feel for the plan and changes. Stephen utilized power point to show the overall areal of the portion of town showing Wagner Park, the Gondola, the Little Nell, the Grand Hyatt, St. Regis, Willoughby Park and the far parcels of this project lots 1, 2 and 3. Stephen showed the current 30 SkiCo parking spots. Stephen said that they were always conscious of the neighbors and what they think. Stephen said the encumbrances on site were the 90 year lease for SkiCo parking and a private encumbrance specifically to Mary Barbee's property which runs adjacent to their property and until she sells they cannot build anything above grade. Stephen noted the Juan Street Affordable Housing Units actually sits within the site of current owners of this project. Stephen said the revised proposal honors that open space for Juan Street Affordable Housing. Stephen said the retaining walls are primarily street front. Stephen said by stepping the retained property up the slope they can move up the site and pull it back and allow a better pedestrian experience in this area. Stephen said the flat part goes up to the mountain and the structures respond to that as either in placement along there or a reorientation of the buildings to address how you meet the mountain in this proposal. Stephen said from Norway looking back over town we see the ski slope coming down and a natural flow of the structures in that area. Stephen showed a rendering of the block and this takes into account the approvals of the Lift One site. There is a 75 feet of rise of this section of South Aspen Street; it is a significant amount of rise to incorporate into a project but it also something to be cognitive of the street and street safety. Stephen said the approved street section never anticipated there would be a project on the other side of the street that moved into the right -of -way. Stephen pointed out the approved townhome section on power point. Stephen noted that with the approval that is built, South Aspen Street will have no parking, it is a narrowed street so there is no place to pull over and stop to make deliveries or anything like 8 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 that. They proposed to bring an inner driveway into the project to bring the cars in terms of drop off and deliveries only of the street. Stephen said their proposal was to spread the traffic out in a more evenly distributed way but what it does is lower the traffic impact, to lower the traffic counts for this project; if you take it from winter to summer it is a reduction of traffic at peak hours by 14% and on an average from 15% to 22% reduction of traffic. Stephen said that Jay Hammond did the calculations for this project. Stephen said the livability for the people who are going to live there is good and so the Aspenites access to the Lift One A. Stephen said the current proposal keeps 10 units on site and moves 8 units off -site; it retains the open space and livability is maximized on site. Stephen said on site we have 1 and 2 bedroom units and offsite 3 bedroom units. Mitch said with that the Aspen Area Community Plan it is transit orientated and throughout all the updates and this is infill development in a developed area. Stephen said there was a connection to the park and with the new proposal had more open space. The affordable housing steps down and the units have breaks in between buildings. Stephen said that when you take a look at parcels 2 and 3 we see the individual units and the 3 structures on the slope and if we overlay a profile of the existing what is important to note is the revised design to enable to step down the slope more naturally. Stephen said they would utilize efficient construction and with the new massing there is more daylight. David Parker said they want you to know that they are more respectful of the neighborhood and there are no increases in height, floor areas and they are not requesting any reduction in setbacks; they are not requesting any reduction in AHU but the removal of some off site. David said they are requesting an extension of our vested rights. Cliff said that he was looking at the site plan and was trying to understand that there were 2 driveways and one curve that goes in front of the lower, middle and upper triplexes. Cliff said there was a separate piece of pavement that accesses a garage completely separate off Aspen Street and off of Juan Street there is additional pavement and assumes it goes into garages for the lower and middle triplexes. Cliff said there was parking for a condo. David replied it was in the right -of -way and they will be losing that parking and it is a non - conforming building with no parking; we are talking with them. Cliff said that you are moving the SkiCo further away from base operations. Mitch said the city reserved emergency access for this site. 9 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 Stan asked the reason for the garage access and why it couldn't be integrated into the curb cut for one way. Stephen replied that primary reason was a huge difference in height; they lessened the curbs cuts from 3 to 2 but it widened the one curb cut. Bert said Exhibit G of the applicant designs, there is green space and he asked why is that green space there at Juan Street Apartments. Stephen replied that is to the encumbrance from Mary Barbee the absolute no above grade building. Mitch said there was green space next to the Juan Street Apartments. Bert said Exhibit F in the binder page 14 talks about parking reduced on Juan Street. Mitch replied that the SkiCo parking moved into the garage. Keith Goode said there was employee housing at the ABC but the free market housing that you are building is all three bedrooms on site. Keith asked if there were any other options looked at in town rather than the ABC. Mitch said that they looked at a number. Jasmine asked the square footage for the 10 free - market; what was originally proposed and what is proposed now. Mitch replied they were originally 14 and there were 10. David said they were all under 5,000 square feet. Jasmine said that you are saying there is no increase in the above grade free - market square footage. The applicant answered that is correct. Mitch said another significant difference was that all of the affordable housing is lottery for sale units. LJ asked how big were the retaining walls; he noticed some at 4 feet, 8 feet and 14 feet. Stephen stated that they ranged from about 14 feet and go down as low as a foot and there is no difference from the original; maybe one at 16 feet, it is the position of those retaining walls to lessen the impact. LJ asked if staff objected to the retaining walls. Jennifer replied they were overall site issues and we hoping some of the retaining walls could be reduced. Mitch said the original plan was hard to read. LJ said that they said they had to take the soils to Denver and the EPA says you can take it to the dump here. Mitch said it was a little too toxic for that. LJ asked if there were any public that would like to make a comment on this application. Public Comments: 1. David Ellis owner at the Timberridge Condominiums, said as David Parker indicated they have had input and if the project is built as originally 10 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 approved the parking in public /private area on Dean Street will disappear. David Ellis said the other one is circulation and traffic. David Ellis said prior to Juan Street and Trainor Landing project being improved there was no parking being approved anywhere on Garmich but there was head in parking the entire length of Koch Park and City Council in their discretion decided to change all that. The fact remains that after those projects were built and some of the slides showed there is parking on Juan Street and Garmich. David said you were talking about the loss of 18 spaces. Cliff said in 2003 there was talk about Timberridge parking in this new project. David Parker answered he didn't see how that was really possible in the original hearing. Jennifer entered into the record the minutes that we have talked about will be Exhibit H (P &Z December 5, 2000, January 16, 2001) and City Council (February 12, 2001, March 26, 2001 and April 9, 2001); final minutes of P &Z (June 3, 2003) and Council (July 28, 2003). The applicant's presentation will be Exhibit I. David Parker said they were not changing David Ellis' situation; we have a proposed plan that and will work with him to see if there is any other solution. LJ noted that it was 7 o'clock and wanted to know if anyone wanted to extend the meeting. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue South Aspen Street to January 17, 2012 seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor APPROVED. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting for 15 minutes seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. Jasmine Tygre and Jim DeFrancia excused themselves at 7:OOpm. Other Business: Miscellaneous Code Amendments LJ Erspamer opened the Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Jessica Garrow said this is not a public hearing and the public hearing is next week on January 10` and she wanted to give a brief presentation on the "gap" code amendments related to the AACP. Jessica said there were 16 review criteria in the land use code by consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan or Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Jessica said because the new AACP is going to be a guiding document the 11 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 new land use will eliminate the references to the AACP otherwise we continue using the 2000 AACP to not reflect the community sentiment in the same way that the more updated Plan does. Jessica said the proposed changes are fairly minor in nature and it is to make sure P &Z and City Council retain their existing review authority related to mass and scale and neighborhood compatibility. Those are the 3 things that the AACP is most typically used for right now so we are suggesting eliminating some references to the AACP and changing areas like PUD, SPA and Subdivision where we have used the AACP to have those sections to just address mass and scale and neighborhood compatibility. There is an additional proposed code change in Exhibit B in the packet that calls for new neighborhood outreach requirement for applications that are significant. Staff wanted to a have a more detailed discussion with P &Z about terms if should this be a requirement, should it just be a suggestion but the 2000 AACP talks about importance of communicating with neighbors and neighborhood comment on a project and Council has used that in the past. Stan Gibbs asked about language on page 14 in #B there is a proposed amendment for a recognized community goal; he was concerned that recognized was just another difficult word to understand; there needs to be a better definition than just recognized. Jessica replied adopted. Stan said that is the other one because adopted; what are you talking about are you really thinking when I read that it was Oh just the AACP just a different code. Jessica answered that it is something that we talked about at staff and some input from private planers and architects that use the AACP and we are going to have another meeting with them tomorrow to try and get some feedback on these in general. Jessica said that any code amendment should reflect community will and community sentiment so it could be AACP, it could be Council top 10 goals, or something else that is a recognized community goal. Jessica stated that if you have a different verb for that she would like to hear it stated, we want to make sure that this is clear. Stan said under Planned Unit Development on page 26; he thought this the kind of thing that we need to have and actually say we are replacing the reference with actual code language that defines what the criteria are. Stan said we need to think of a way to better do those things. Jessica said that they will come back with some suggestions; one thing to keep in mind is that a code amendment is fundamentally different than a development. Cliff Weiss asked the timing reconciliation of this which is staff's wish list towards code amendment. Jessica responded that this is intended to cover the gap issues 12 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 because the AACP is going to be adopted as a guiding document unless Council passes an Ordinance that says the 2000 AACP is no longer in effect and we are eliminating the references to the AACP in our land use code; what will happen is when we are coming forward and presenting an application to you we will have to pull out the 2000 AACP and see if the project is consistent with it. Jessica said the gap issues was trying to eliminate some of the subjectivity in the code, make sure P &Z and Council retain the authority that you have in the AACP to remain with the compatibility with mass and scale without having to just reference the AACP. Cliff said let's be specific and look at 8040 Greenline Review on page 3 of 6 and says any development with 150 feet of 8040 elevation lines before I go through a height with P &Z; he loved that but was confused because won't we be considering a number; aren't we doing work twice. Stan said we should look at page which actually looks at 8040 and it is quite clear, number 11. Jessica said on 8040 there is always a recommendation from Parks, Recreation and Trails and Parks uses their adopted recommendations and what happens is that staff couches it in terms of AACP; the actual rules and regulations that we are getting out of this one are not in the AACP; they are in other adopted standards. Bert Myrin said the goal of this is to provide something for elected officials to rely on when they can't enter the AACP. Bert asked staff to find the projects that were difficult and see if the language is in this proposed. Bert said were there things that met the code but the staff or P &Z or Council say "yeah but..." and those need to be addressed; there are only a couple of big ones per year. Stan said that you would have found those cases where you would have found out the issues. Jessica said having language caused by the code is a stronger position to be in than referring to a separate guiding aspirational document. Jessica said they are trying to get to the more specific language. Bert said he was worried in the interim time that a developer said that actually wanted to do it; instead of just backing away we would have this gap. Jessica said the way that we understand the way the staff has used the gap issues as mass, scale and neighborhood compatibility and that needs to be incorporated in to the land use code. Jim True said he understands what Bert is saying and it may not be too easy to apply but 2 examples; Cooper Street came up in subdivision to comply with the AACP; a ecouncil member said it doesn't comply for x, y and z and you are looking for x, y and z to be in this code amendment. Jessica said the differences that there have been situations that staff has said meets this proportion of the AACP and then in a public hearing Council or P &Z has said no it doesn't. 13 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — January 4, 2012 MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue the "gap issues" Code Amendment to Tuesday, January 10` seconded by LJErspamer. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to adjourn at 7.:35pm seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:35 pm. ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14